Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Ditching the commute might seem an easy climate win, but other factors such as the relative inefficiency of home heating outweigh the CO2 savings.
Is remote working better for the environment? Not necessarily
Companies have a rare moment to reset working models. But climate calculations of remote v office work are complex
Amanda Schupak
Tue 3 Aug 2021 01.00 AESTStacy Kauk was finalizing Shopify’s 2019 sustainability report when the pandemic forced the company into remote work.
“I kind of stopped in my footsteps and went, ‘Uh oh, what’s going to happen if we’re closing our offices during Covid and staying remote in the long term? What does that mean for Shopify’s corporate carbon footprint?’” said Kauk, who directs the Canadian e-commerce company’s $5m annual sustainability fund.
It’s a vital question that companies may need to ask as they start to redefine their working models in the wake of the pandemic – though sustainability experts worry that not all will.
…
When workers’ homes become their offices, commutes may fall out of the carbon equation, but what’s happening inside those homes must be added in. How much energy is being used to run the air conditioner or heater? Is that energy coming from clean sources? In some parts of the country during lockdown, average home electricity consumption rose more than 20% on weekdays, according to the International Energy Agency. IEA’s analysis suggests workers who use public transport or drive less than four miles each way could actually increase their total emissions by working from home.
Looking further ahead, the questions multiply. Many Shopify employees live near the office and walk, bike or take public transit. Will remote work mean they move from city apartments to sprawling suburban homes, which use, on average, three times more energy? Will they buy cars? Will they be electric or gas-powered SUVs?
“You have company control over what takes place in the office,” Kauk noted. “When you have everyone working remotely from home, corporate discretion is now employee discretion.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/02/is-remote-working-better-for-the-environment-not-necessarily
Clearly the real problem is that people stuck at home can still afford heating and air conditioners.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If the energy used at home is all electric whats the problem? /sarc
Household insulation technology presents low hanging fruit for regions that have never needed to consider energy costs.
No doubt there are some great technologies developed for Northern Europe that could find application in warmer climates for both heat retention and heat prevention.
When money is no object, it’s amazing how much improvement you can get.
For superstitious people, anything and everything is (or will be, or possibly will be) worse than itself. Global warming also, it is twice as fast anywhere than everywhere.
Clearly the real problem is that people stuck at home can still afford heating and air conditioners. – article
People can still afford heating and air conditioning and food and clothing and – wait for it – they can think for themselves. This quibbling over transferring HVAC from the office to the home is ridiculous. In fact, complaining about it is beginning to smell a lot like obsessive compulsive behavior, in the form of an obsession with something that squidgy-minded people like the Graunadians are finally revealing to us all.
I found it quite comfortable to work from home, mostly because commuting wore me out even if I took the train instead of driving. And when I walked away from the work world, I did a little dance on my front steps.
If everyone gave up the commute and worked by remote, doesn’t that save money and the dreaded carbon emissions stuff? And who gives a flying batmobile if working from home offends the delicate sensibilities of the Graunalots? Seriously, if they didn’t have something to complain about, they’d be pouting in a corner somewhere. They are ridiculous.
“Covid Lockdowns are Driving Up CO2 Emissions! Plants are Rejoicing! The Climate and the Planet Couldn’t Care Less”.
Film at 11.
The office I worked out of before the pandemic, never fully closed. There were a handful of people who couldn’t work from home, plus security and maintenance personnel stayed on site. In a few areas, the lights could be turned off, and A/C was turned up a few degrees, but couldn’t be completely turned off. The same for heat in the winter, temperatures turned down a few degrees, but couldn’t be turned off completely.
The main savings for the building was all the computers that were no longer putting out heat. However most of the computers were taken home. At home, those computers ran just as many hours, if not more, compared to when they were at the office.
Lots of homes that used to be vacant during the day, now have someone in them at all times.
Of course some people had spouses and children who were at home most of the day, so their increase in electricity usage was smaller.
In my example, I’m pretty confident that the total amount of electricity and natural gas being used increased. The amount of gasoline/diesel being used decreased, but I don’t know if it was enough to make up for the other increases.
There are also deliveries. Instead of delivering 100 packages to a single building and having shipping/receiving personnel deliver them to individuals, the delivery companies now have to deliver those 100 packages to 100 homes.
we have to stop falling into the trap of arguing over whether events increase of decrease a trace element at 250 to 500 parts per million accepting the premise that it is triggering the end of days. Lockdowns are bad for humans. any shift in CO2 because if them just doesn’t matter.
they are never happy.
We should keep in mind that environmentalism is a red herring. Sure, some followers actually give half a darn about the planet. But the leaders of the movement are 100% about destroying capitalism and installing something far less palatable.
Failing to protect the planet is never a deterrent to their efforts. The truths in this article are irrelevant to them.
This looks to me like trying to explain away why after so many people have stopped commuting to work, the atmospheric CO2 concentration seems to have not been affected. That would suggest that all of the carbon mitigation schemes are pointless, and so there must be excuses.